tiziano wrote in post #6867019
I assume you have stepped into a discussion without reading it all. Otherwise you would have known where the police baton and other weapons were introduced in the discussion.
Funny thing is that you are arguing with me, while we both say the same thing: that we would try to restrain the histerical mom.
I guess this a problem of today's society, we don't communicate, we don't listen to each other. Just like the crazy woman attacking without first asking anything.
Anyway, yes, I have been attacked by a drunk, violent girl. She was phisically fit too. I was able to restrain her. I got a lot of scratches on my arms. Scratches were not a problem. The problem was explaing them to my wife...
I did read the discussion (I was also in it from just about the begining of this thread). The post the other fellow made referenced the baton and pepperspray in response to a claim that he advocated pulling out a gun. Note that a gun was NOT mentioned originally (as far as I recall reading).
Drunk people, male OR female, are easier to "handle" physically as they are normally less coordinated and are having balance issues to begin with. I've dealt with quite a few drunk people, male and female, and have found this to be the case. Every once in awhile there will be an exception to the rule.
Dealing with a sober, though, hysterical or focused individuals bent on a particular objective is quite something else altogether (we won't even get into drugs users one pcp or other types which endow the user with sometimes superhuman strenght).
While we are both talking "restraint" I believe we mean different things.
I "choose" to use restraint merely because it is my preference.
I would have no problems with someone choosing to just punch the atacker in the face. Restraint is just my chosen method to employ first.
That doesn't mean that if it looks like I might be on the losing end of the situation I won't resort to a more aggressive action but I'm not going to criticize someone who feels they needed to take a more aggressive defensive position from the onset of the attack.
In fact a person attempting to "restrain" an atacker is automatically in a more precarious position than a person who merely takes the quicker albeit less humanitarian route.
Keep in mind, if your attacker is not holding back, and you are (as in the case when attempting to restrain), then you are at a tremendous disadvantage. That is why it usually takes a great deal more people to "restrain" one person. Now if you are willing to assume that risk than more power to you, but it is not right to place that standard upon another.
Now does this all apply in the OP's situation? Probably not as we are discusing an elevated situation that did not occur in the OP's original post (based on his description neither he nor his equipment received damage).
Now if she had started trying to kick him in the jewels, scratch his eyes out, deliver a roundhouse to his head, pulled knife, gun, baton, or any number of trained or untrained attacks that would be more in line with our dicussion regarding uses of force.